Susan van de Venhttps://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk
Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Bassingbourn, Melbourn, Meldreth and Whaddon
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 17:44:12 +0000 en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1Meaningful vote?https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/03/16/meaningful-vote/
https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/03/16/meaningful-vote/#respondSat, 16 Mar 2019 14:06:27 +0000https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=6092It was only via a press release that I learned of the County Council’s endorsement of East West Rail Route Option A, running through Bassingbourn – published even before the relevant committee had met to form a view and vote on the matter.

I’m very grateful to parish council representatives from Bassingbourn, Whaddon and Meldreth for joining me at a meeting of the Economy and Environment Committee at Shire Hall on 14 March to give our views. The committee’s debate seemed to take in all the points that we – along with those of speakers from other parishes – had put forward.

One committee member said that the report read like a report prepared for the East West Rail Company, not for a council committee with the interests of Cambridgeshire residents as its key priority. The officer who had prepared the report stated that none of the five options met value for money tests and emphasized that the report was a narrow appraisal of a railway track only, without any consideration of development issues. The potential closure of multiple rights of way was acknowledged with concern. Some councillors indicated they would support Route A but gave no reasons.

It seemed possible from their discussion that the committee might decide that it was not appropriate to endorse any of the options, given the argument that a private railway company is taking the lead on what is in fact a planning matter – the creation of a new town, to justify a railway alongside it. Absence of infrastructure planning, lack of flood risk and environmental assessments, and the adherence to planning processes that exist precisely to protect the integrity of new development, were all discussed in some detail.

And yes, as local people know, Bassingbourn Barracks is already spoken for – perhaps the East West Rail Company was not aware that this is an active MOD site with ambitious plans for redevelopment as a training base for British troops heading for deployment overseas, as I’d seen for myself the day before on a tour of the site.

The committee then voted 5-3, with one abstention, in favour of endorsing Option A. This was difficult to understand given the debate that had just taken place.

Prior to the meeting, a parish councillor had raised a query as to whether the Chairman of the Economy and Environment Committee, Cllr Bates, had a conflict of interest, as he had been Chairman of East West Rail for many years until recently, and is still a member of the East West Rail Consortium.

The County Council Monitoring Officer’s advice was that technically the Chairman was allowed to participate in the meeting so long as he made it clear that he did not come to the meeting with any bias or predetermination. Those of us who attended the meeting felt very keenly that for the sake of transparency and avoidance of doubt, not participating and certainly not voting would have been helpful. The Chairman had not contributed his views to the debate on the recommendation, but led the vote in favour of it.

Tight timescales have allowed no opportunity for parish councils and communities to meaningfully prepare their own discussions and deliberations. East West Rail should have notified elected representatives of intended consultation dates in order to allow logistical planning and preparation. Such steps would have resulted in a more useful consultation outcome, and encouraged public confidence in the result.

A consistent remark from people who have engaged in the consultation has been that the maps are notable for their lack of information. This has been perceived as obfuscating and has undermined public confidence.

Site selection outside the statutory planning process

This exercise of route selection is arguably at least as much about development site selection as it is about railway line route selection. It is profoundly concerning that this exercise is taking place outside the statutory planning processes that exists precisely to protect the integrity of new settlements and their accompanying infrastructure – indeed, to ensure the outcome is safe.

It must therefore be for the Local Planning Authority, rather than a railway company, to lead and manage this process. A consistent remark from people who have engaged in the consultation exercise is that EWR representatives have openly referred to their own lack of expertise in housing and infrastructure development. This too has undermined public confidence.

None of the Local Plans covering the Bedford-Cambridge segment of EWR have assessed housing growth and associated infrastructure requirements on anywhere near the scale that is implied in the EWR proposals.

Flood risk and environmental assessments, for example, have not been carried out; development on sites suggested by EWR’s route selection may be unviable.

A comprehensive response to this consultation by The Wildlife Trust sets out overwhelming and profound concerns on the ecological impacts of all five route options.

Cost estimates

The ‘cheapest’ Route Option A, as well as options C and D, omit:

Cost of a new Bassingbourn station

Cost of surrounding highway and other infrastructure, including health and education, for the new town that is implied for Bassingbourn, and for the weight of the shadow of development in surrounding communities.

Cost of relocating the MOD site at Bassingbourn Barracks, now open, active and in the midst of redevelopment.

Any planning gain for Routes A, C or D selection may be wiped out by the need to dual the A603, the A1198, the A10, and the A505, for example.

EWR’s claim of undertaking economic analysis cannot be accepted as sound, given that EWR has not published its own high growth scenarios.

Multi-Modal Corridors

The importance of adhering to principles of multi-modal transport corridors to encourage and facilitate sustainable transport in heavily populated areas at a time when climate change and biodiversity crises are well understood should be a critical factor in weighing the EWR route options.

Options A, C and D run in isolation of the multi-modal transport corridor principle.

Options B and E most closely adhere to multi-modal transport corridor principles and sit largely within a statutory growth area subject to transport infrastructure investment; however, from Cambourne they depart from those favourable conditions in order to make a southern approach to Cambridge.

The CamBedRailRoad proposal meets the multi-modal corridor principle most closely. People who have engaged in the consultation process have consistently expressed frustration that the CBRR proposal has not been formally presented for consideration alongside the current five options.

Local dysconnectivity: a wall for South Cambridgeshire?

It has been made clear in the Cambridgeshire County Council report on East West Rail, in comparison with EWR’s resolute ambiguity, that all public rights of way are potentially at risk.

If a railway line is built on a no level-crossing policy and along a series of viaducts and embankments, it will become South Cambridgeshire’s Wall, bringing profound dysconnectivity to a wide area.

Conclusion

I reject Options A, C and D whose merits have not been convincingly argued. Options B and E hold some merit in their partial adherence to a multi-modal corridor in a designated growth area subject to significant transport infrastructure investment. None of the options have been subject to assessment and testing by Local Authority statutory planning processes and are therefore fundamentally unsound, given the objective of accompanying development on an unprecedented scale. A statutory planning process would also have allowed consideration of the merits of the CBRR proposal, which is the one option endorsed by the Wildlife Trust.

A railway project cannot be properly assessed in isolation: this is a project with very significant impacts and consequences about which EWR has been able to tell us very little.

Susan van de Ven

County Councillor

Bassingbourn, Melbourn, Meldreth and Whaddon

9 March 2019

]]>https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/03/09/my-response-to-the-east-west-rail-consultation/feed/0Deborah Marriage’s Open Letter to East West Railhttps://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/03/04/deborah-marriages-open-letter-to-east-west-rail/
https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/03/04/deborah-marriages-open-letter-to-east-west-rail/#respondMon, 04 Mar 2019 22:29:59 +0000https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=6084At Whaddon Village Hall this evening, I promised to post this comprehensive Open Letter from Town Planner Deborah Marriage in response to the East West Rail proposals.

If you care about the East West Rail proposals, please do respond to the consultation by the deadline of March 11.

If you find the consultation response document awkward, as many people have told me they do, then please work your way down to the ‘General Feedback’ box at the end of the document for your comments, and feel free to add any pages to supplement – this was the advice of East West Rail when I rang them today to ask. The form is here:https://eastwestrail.co.uk/haveyoursay

Cambridgeshire County Council has issued a press release in glowing terms about the recent Ofsted inspection of its children’s services. The average reader could be led to believe that the inspection had passed the council with flying colours:

Council Leader Councillor Steve Count said, “I am very pleased that inspectors recognised the commitment to supporting children’s services by the Council as a whole. Children’s services are a very high priority for me personally as Leader and it gives me great confidence that Ofsted have given us an independent vote of confidence that the changes and investment we have made will deliver the improvements needed.”

In fact, however, according to Cambridgeshire’s Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Lucy Nethsingha, Ofsted have downgraded the council’s children’s services from ‘good’ (in 2014), to ‘requires improvement’ less than five years later. This is emphatically not a ‘vote of confidence’ in the quality of Children’s Services in Cambridgeshire, says Cllr Nethsingha – but it is a clear sign that the quality of children’s services has moved in the wrong direction in recent years.

“Those of us who have been following the cuts to early help services across Cambridgeshire, with the massive reduction in the number of children’s centres by almost half, and the removal of almost all the locality teams who used to provide early help services to families of older children, will not be surprised that the number of children coming into care in Cambridgeshire has continued to rise,” says Cllr Nethsingha. She goes on to observe that this figure is now significantly above the national average, whereas a few years ago it was significantly below the national average.

“With early help services having taken massive cuts, social care services are under huge pressure, and as the Ofsted report makes clear social worker caseloads are far too high,” she concludes. “I am concerned that not only have the Conservative leadership of the County Council presided over a serious decline in children’s services in Cambridgeshire, but their attitude in the press release seems to indicate that they don’t even recognise how serious the situation facing children in Cambridgeshire now is.”

Quotes from the Ofsted report that did not make it into the County Council press release:

“The quality and the timeliness of services remain less than good for too many children. For these children, the local authority is not making the positive difference it could and should.”

“The most significant challenge to the local authority’s ability to provide consistently good services to children, young people and their families has been, and continues to be, the size of caseloads. These are too high for most social workers and unsustainable in some teams. The impact of this is that, too often, social workers and frontline managers have had to focus on the most urgent and important work to secure children’s immediate safety, without sufficient capacity for the follow-up work needed to sustain change within families or to ensure that children in care have permanent homes as soon as possible.”

“The local authority has made progress in tackling this challenge. Additional investment in staffing and other related measures are reducing caseloads. This is enabling staff to tackle drift and delay in work with children and to improve the quality of services that they receive. However, this progress needs to be sustained and built on before most children receive a consistently good service.”

“The help and protection that children, young people and their families receive in Cambridgeshire requires improvement. A significant minority of children do not get the help and support they need quickly enough. Too many assessments take longer than they should and do not fully explore underlying problems or the wishes and feelings of children. Significant workload pressures in teams across the county mean that there is much variability in who gets what help and support as well as in its effectiveness.”

]]>https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/24/cambridgeshires-childrens-services-the-artificial-glow-of-the-council-press-release/feed/0Freedom of Movement: Question Time for East West Railhttps://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/16/freedom-of-movement-question-time-for-east-west-rail/
https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/16/freedom-of-movement-question-time-for-east-west-rail/#respondSat, 16 Feb 2019 09:35:57 +0000https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=6073

The East West Rail consultation happening now suggests serious intent to proceed with some version of the final Bedford-Cambridge rail connection. Without a doubt this stands to be the biggest infrastructure project to impact South Cambridgeshire for a generation, and Bassingbourn stands to be at the epicentre. So please heed the ‘Have Your Say’ message that East West Rail have put through all our letter boxes before the March 11 consultation deadline.

More detailed maps of the route options, and an alternative northern route (‘which could still be argued for’ say East West Rail): www.CamBedRailRoad.org.uk

Route A through Bassingbourn is listed as the cheapest of the five official options. Ultimately, it’s for the Treasury to write the cheque, so one can surmise that cheapest stands a good chance.

Here are some of the questions I’m asking – with a few bits of feedback from East West Rail included.

1. Will the new railway line connect or separate communities?

If Network Rail policy is to eliminate all level crossings and introduce no new ones, would the new railway line serve as a barrier running for many miles across South Cambridgeshire? No answer.

If any access and rights of way along the new rail line would be protected, on what scale and what type should be expected? Do these ‘mitigations’ figure in the Options estimates? ‘We don’t know’.

2. A new Bassingbourn Station?

Is the cost of a Bassingbourn Station worked into options A, C and D? No. A station is a possible feature of Options A, C and D but not definite.

What minimum level of new population would trigger a new station? Not clear. (A figure of 30,000 homes – equal to five Roystons – near a new Bassingbourn Station has been mooted.)

For a new significant population centre, has associated required new infrastructure (roads, schools, etc) been factored into any planning, and into cost estimates for the Bassingbourn Options? ‘Not at this stage.’

Would the current village of Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth be about equidistant from a new Basssingbourn Station and Royston Station? (The map would suggest so.)

Would a new Bassingbourn Station connect to the Royston and London service? No – it would run east-west, connecting to Bedford and Cambridge.

3. What will all this look like?

If a Bassingbourn station is factored into cost estimates, which it isn’t, 5th Studio shows a 1km long viaduct west of A1198. Total structure = 1km ramped embankment + 1 km viaduct + 1 km ramped Embankment = 3km. In the station’s absence, East West Rail might only build a 1km + 2 x 20m Bridge + 1km = 2.04 km. (East West Rail: Please provide 3-D imaging of rail line infrastructure for the length of each route Options in order to understand the impact of infrastructure on landscape and environment.)

4. Is Bassingbourn Barracks closure required for the Bassingbourn Options?

Are the three Bassingbourn Options contingent on the Barracks closing? Not worked out, but there’s no other obvious publicly owned land of the scale required. No confirmation from the MOD that closure of the Barracks is planned.

5. What principles underpin calculations for leveraging finance from new unplanned development to fund the Bassingbourn Options? No information.

6. Multi-modal transport corridors

If East West Rail follows National Infrastructure Commission guidance on the creation of multi-modal corridors, how would the Bassinbourn Options routes become multi-modal, and where would the funding come from? ‘A good question’.

7. Connections from a new Bassingbourn Station to Foxton, Shepreth, Meldreth, Royston and London King’s Cross/St Pancras Stations

Would the Bassingbourn route options connect to these Stations? No – the new service would run east-west, to Cambridge and Bedford.

Sarah Grove and I met with Phil Hutchinson and Jane Cobb at King’s Cross on Tuesday. The key agenda item was the restoration of at least one peak time semi-fast service for our London commuters.

Now that the dust has somewhat settled and the restoration of fast services for the bigger stations at Royston and Letchworth has been worked out for May 2019, there’s scope for examining if and where in the timetable a semi-fast could be restored for Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth. Unfortunately this cannot be done for May, but there’s scope for December 2019.

The new rolling stock of 8 and 12 carriage trains, and the discontinuation of Royston as a terminus for services from London, makes the issue more complex in the new era: trains can’t be split down at Royston as before. Overall passenger growth and seat availability at the bigger stations down the line also figure strongly into capacity for adding us in.

We also looked beyond December 2019 to pinpoint a series of future opportunities where new services could be worked in. We were reminded to anticipate franchise change (not so long from now) and baseline requirements for our users at that point: bearing in mind that footfall at Meldreth has increased a phenomenal 39% over the past five years, with very significant growth also Foxton and Shepreth, there is every reason to anticipate and make the case.

Phil reminded us that the May 2018 introduction of half-hourly off-peak services at Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton was not a Department for Transport franchise requirement, but a result of our Rail User Group lobbying over many years. We certainly put it firmly on our own wish list for the Great Northern Franchise before GTR came into being. This has been a positive, transformative change for rail users, especially between the villages and Cambridge, but also off-peak to London (though there was not much cause for celebration last May, for obvious reasons).

Nevertheless, there can be no assumption that the half-hourly standard will continue beyond the GTR franchise: it’s still not a Dept for Transport requirement and must be lobbied for in anticipation of setting new franchise requirements.

We had a lengthy discussion on the problem of the two short platforms at Meldreth – a particular problem on the Cambridge side at morning peak. Meldreth is an anomaly on the network requiring timely communication to arriving passengers from BOTH directions reminding them well enough in advance to exit from the front four carriages. At the moment this communication is not clear or consistent. Again, the phenomenal rate of growth at Meldreth would suggest that short platform capacity (and thus safety) needs to be revisited by Network Rail; Phil took note.

Severe lack of car parking at Shepreth and absence of car parking at Foxton were also discussed. We explained the expectation that Network Rail will shortly honour its commitment to return the unofficial car park at Shepreth to parking use, which would help relieve pressure on Station Road and alleviate traffic chaos caused by long level crossing barrier down times.

We briefly discussed East West Rail and Cambridge South Station. East West Rail recently confirmed that Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton Stations would see no access to the new East West Rail service, but sit alongside new infrastructure.

Returning to London commuter services, here’s a plea for our London commuters to become involved with the Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton RUG: We know that our collective station footfall sees 50% of users travelling north and 50% south – Cambridge and London being the key opposite destinations. Fighting both corners is bound to be most effective with actual rail users involved – we need London commuters at the table.

East West Rail constitutes the most transformational infrastructure project to impact South Cambridgeshire in a generation. Please take a moment to read through the links below.

Five options have now been published on the exact line of the Bedford-Cambridge segment of the East West Rail project.

Options A, C and D connect from Bassingbourn (with a new station) and fully include Whaddon, Meldreth and Shepreth in their possible associated housing development area. These options may also impinge on the National Trust estate at Wimpole Hall. Options B and E run via Cambourne and cross the A10 between Foxton and Harston.

All options are left open to move far enough east to connect into the London Liverpool St line before running north to Cambridge. The precise scale of any new settlement at Bassingbourn has not been published in the consultation document.

In one of its less edifying meetings, Cambridgeshire County Council’s budget and council tax have now been set by the ruling group (Conservative). 2019 can be noted as the year when Government Revenue Support Grant to local authorities reached zero. The policy of gradually removing this core income stream has stripped county councils of the ability to perform many of the services that people expect. Thus far, ‘Transformation’ has not bridged the gap, and it’s estimated that for Cambridgeshire, an extra £41 million will need to be found over the next four years.

The Chancellor’s one-off £420 million for potholes nationwide means £6.6 million for Cambridgeshire. As reported previously, the cost of bringing Cambridgeshire’s highway network up to a good standard was estimated several years ago at £350 million.

For our villages, the list shows pavement repair between Oakrits and Howard Road Meldreth, unspecified sections of pavement repair in Orchard Road Melbourn, two small segments of pavement repair in The Causeway Bassingbourn, and no schemes for Whaddon, Kneesworth or Shepreth. Some of the fund will go into general reactive repairs; none will fundamentally improve road and pavement structures. Money must be spent by March 31.

SOUTH CAMBS DISTRICT COUNCIL BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX

SCDC has had a good response to its business plan public consultation and is now refining it according to its priorities of affordable housing, economic growth and the environment – the budget meeting is 21 February.

ANGLIAN WATER: UPGRADE TO MELBOURN SEWAGE SYSTEM AS PLANNED?

Anglian Water recently attended Melbourn Parish Council to present their case on Discharge of Duty in relation to the planning application for 199 homes and a care home in New Road, currently under construction. The understanding when the application was approved in 2016 was that the existing sewer system in Melbourn would be upgraded to accommodate the new build and increased population.

It now appears that Anglian Water have instead agreed with the building contractor that foul water will be kept on site for longer, in a larger storage facility, and then pumped into existing system a bit at a time. At the same time, Anglian Water have publicly confirmed that the existing foul water system in Melbourn is already at 100% capacity. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that if you pump out effluent into a system already at 100%, the likelihood of problems is high. Jose and the Melbourn team intend hold Anglian Water to account to properly explain the calculations and decision. Watch this space.

CLEAN AIR ACT AND RURAL FUEL POVERTY DISCONNECT

The Rural Service Network has written to the Environment Secretary to highlight the disproportionate impact his Clean Air Strategy could have on people living in rural areas. As a result of low gas mains connections in rural areas, rural residents often have to rely on oil which is expensive and wood burning stoves and coal to heat their homes to keep the costs down.

If restrictions are applied evenly across the country on the sale of wet wood for domestic burning so that it can only be purchased in volumes over a specified cut off point, it could mean that there may be no cost equivalent alternative. The fuel poverty gap in rural areas is double that in urban areas, over £600 compared to £300 in urban areas. More here – https://rsnonline.org.uk/Clean-air-strategy-to-intensify-ru…

“I’VE LIVED 58 YEARS IN SOUTH CAMBS AND I’M NOW APPLYING FOR SETTLED STATUS’

It’s not easy applying for EU Settled Status, no matter how long you’ve lived here. In addition to amassing all the correct paper work, you need the required Android phone app to scan them. Here’s one example – if you would be up for lending a hand to someone similarly in need, please get in touch.

South Cambridgeshire District Council has been working for some time with the Federation of Small Business and the Chamber of Commerce to provide information to small and medium-sized business owners, but there’s concern that due to lack of resource, most have done little or nothing to plan for anticipated impacts of Brexit.

Cambridgeshire County Council started on its Brexit contingency planning only in January – and is ahead of most other county councils.

There’s concern around loss of EU Regional funding; workforce shortages especially in social care where the estimate now is 20% of workers from the EU; and the negative impact on the economy that will exacerbate poverty and inequalities. The council’s report neglects to mention multiple impacts on schools. Its brief report is here.

Our local authorities sit on a regional contingency planning group that is tracking fuel, food and medicine shortages. In the event of civil unrest in larger population areas, Cambridgeshire Police could be deployed out of county.

MENTAL HEALTH: SUPPORT IN MY COMMUNITY AND HOW TO FIND IT

All welcome at the Melbourn Hub, March 13, 7:30-9PM: The goal of this meeting will be to increase awareness of existing mental health support networks in our community, whether to help you or someone you know, and to become generally better acquainted with what’s going on locally. We’ll hear from Mind, Allyance school counselling which serves a multitude of schools in our area, and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

BUSES: DELAYS, AWAITING TRANSFER

The Mayor’s Bus Review has finally been published. It takes detailed note of the plight of rural subsidized services though does not yet lead on a new framework – this is not expected now for another couple of years. Once again, a last-minute stay of execution on bus subsidies through a combination of adjustments in this year’s budget means that the 127 lives to see another day – but again, the same uncertainty will be faced next year, and there’s not quite enough in the pot to ensure that all subsidized buses will be re-contracted.

On the bright side, a positive reminder from the Cam Vale Bus User Group is the excellence of the Busway A commercial service to Addenbrooke’s – quicker than driving. Do try it out!

‘’MYSOUTHCAMBS’

South Cambs District Council has launched a new way of accessing information, processing claims and applications, and generally engaging with the council: ‘mysouthcambs’ is a customer portal on the home page on the Council’s website – www.scambs.gov.uk

Registration only takes a few minutes. Once in, you will be able to create a personal account with the Council which shows and tracks all your online transactions with Council services. We have put all our existing forms on the portal, and integrated the revenue and benefits functions, making it much easier for residents to provide information and complete forms. In due course other services will come online, including the planning service scheduled for summer 2019.

NEXT CYCLE AND RAIL MEETINGS

The A10 Corridor Cycling Campaign AGM will be held March 6, 7:30 PM, Royston Town Hall. An agenda will be posted here – www.a10corridorcycle.com

We would be delighted to address any concerns you may have or help raise awareness of issues affecting our community via this newsletter.

WHAT WE STAND FOR

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. Learn more about or join the Liberal Democrats at http://www.libdems.org.uk.

Cambridgeshire County Council met on Tuesday to set its budget and council tax.

The conduct of the meeting was deeply embarrassing and it’s just as well that the live video stream wasn’t working.

The outcome of decision making is summarized here in a report by Cllr Peter Downes:

“Background:

• Demand for council services is increasing (more older people, more younger people with special needs of various kinds)

• The cost of providing these services is increasing as they are mainly delivered by people rather than by technology

• Revenue grants to local government from central government have been decreasing over the last few years and have now dropped to zero for Cambridgeshire.

• The government sets a limit on the amount by which local taxation (Council Tax) can be increased without there having to be a referendum. The pre-determined limits this year are 2% for Adult Social Services and 2.99% for all other services.
To maintain last year’s level of expenditure on services would have required a council tax increase of 14%. So, the debate was about how to make the savings, for example by reducing/eliminating the service, or by providing a similar service more economically. Increasing income (for example by selling off CCC assets) and reducing administrative costs are also considered. For example, moving CCC HQ from Cambridge to being a ‘hub’ in Alconbury Weald and making greater use of existing council buildings as ‘satellites’ is in the pipeline.

The outcome of four hours of rather tetchy debate was that the ruling group’s (Conservative) proposal for a tax increase of 2% + 2.99%, 4.99% in total was voted through, together with a range of service reduction measures amounting to a total of £27.354 million compared with the previous year.

To give you an overview idea of the net revenue expenditure (i.e. after grants, fees and other income is accounted for), CCC needs to find £319 million, of which the two main expenditure areas are ‘People and Communities’ (e.g. adults and children’s social care) £254 m and Place and Economy (Highways, Environment, waste disposal, libraries, concessionary fares) £58 m.

The opposition groups (Lib Dem and Labour) put forward amendments. In summary, Labour wanted to use up more of the reserves to support Children and Young People, more health visitors, more funding for libraries, better street lighting, and a total tax increase of 3.99% rather than 4.99%. (NB Councils are required to keep a specified level of reserves). Lib Dems supported the higher tax increase of 4.99%, proposed reductions in payments to councillors, reduction in administrative costs (fewer committees), removal of wage cut for employees, better youth services, protection of services to the most vulnerable young people.

In the years 2014-2017, the Conservatives, under pressure from UKIP, did not fully utilise the council tax flexibility. Had they done so, the council tax base would have risen and this year’s increase would have brought in an extra £11m. The cost to a Band D household of every 1% increase is 23p per week. The 4.99% increase will cost £1.15 per week. Over 60% of households in Cambridgeshire are in the lower bands A-C.

Central government has made some minor increases in what it allocates to local government and a new distribution formula is promised now that ‘austerity is over’.

CCC officers anticipate that a further £41m of savings will have to be found over the next four years.”

]]>https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/08/money-at-cambs-county-council/feed/0East West Rail: public participation is NOWhttps://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/06/east-west-rail-public-participation-is-now/
https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/06/east-west-rail-public-participation-is-now/#respondWed, 06 Feb 2019 20:45:37 +0000https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=6063East West Rail: public participation is NOW
(and closes March 11)

Five options have now been published on the exact line of the Bedford-Cambridge segment of the East West Rail project.

Options A, C and D connect from Bassingbourn and fully include Whaddon, Meldreth and Shepreth in their possible associated housing development area. These options may also impinge on the National Trust estate at Wimpole Hall.

Options B and E run via Cambourne and cross the A10 between Foxton and Harston.

All options are left open to move far enough east to connect into the Liverpool St Line before running north to Cambridge.

The precise scale of any new settlement at Bassingbourn has not been published in the consultation document.

]]>https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/06/east-west-rail-public-participation-is-now/feed/0Once we were a community, now we’re segregating and discriminatinghttps://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/01/31/once-we-were-a-community-now-were-segregating-and-discriminating/
https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/01/31/once-we-were-a-community-now-were-segregating-and-discriminating/#commentsThu, 31 Jan 2019 06:10:15 +0000https://susanvandeven.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=6058

ptr

Written Question to Council, 5 February 2019
Cllr Susan van de Ven

Cambridgeshire County Council has a statutory obligation to make non-British EU citizens living in Cambridgeshire aware of the need to apply for Settled Status, post-Brexit, in order to secure their right to remain living in the UK; and also, to apply for Settled Status on behalf of vulnerable children and vulnerable adults, although Government has not yet provided a definition of what constitutes a vulnerable adult.

A resident in my division who might be designated as a vulnerable adult has endeavoured to apply for Settled Status in the public test phase that commenced on 21 January. This process has highlighted procedural points of concern, and questions about who should be considered a vulnerable adult.

The resident is a German citizen 80 years of age, resident in the UK for 58 years, divorced from a British spouse, with limited income, a council tenant, no private transport, no Android phone and no computer or internet access.

The application for Settled Status must be done on-line: this can be done via computer rather than smartphone, however required documentation must first be scanned via a Home Office app downloaded onto an Android device with specified features.

The nearest Cambridgeshire Libraries are in Cambridge or Great Shelford, but there are no bus services from this person’s village to either destination. Nevertheless, once at a library, help would be required to set up a first-time email account and help with navigating a computer and internet, in order to work through a lengthy and complex application process.

In this person’s case, a neighbour offered to help scan required identity documents with his Android phone, but could not successfully download the app (in common with experience reported by Addenbrooke’s when its non-British EU employees went through the pilot phase in Nov-Dec 2018).

If an applicant cannot complete document scanning via an Android device, he or she needs to visit an EU Settlement Resolution Centre, of which there are none in Cambridgeshire. The nearest to South Cambridgeshire is the Hertfordshire Register Office in Hatfield, but this person has no access to transport to reach the centre. Once at the centre, the service provided would be limited to the scanning of documents. The application process would then need to be resumed on line at a library or private computer.

This person’s experience raises the following questions:

How will the Council identify its vulnerable adults?

Will the Council adopt its own compassionate definition of vulnerable adults to include people who are frail, isolated and on limited income?

In addition to the waiving of library internet charges, what steps can the Council take to facilitate the ability of EU residents to access and complete the application process for Settled Status?